FACTS ASSUMED: A Commissioners Court developed a concern about a
judge's impartiality in eminent domain cases and about behavior of the judge "which
may indicate a prejudice" against the County. Two members of the Commissioners Court
requested a meeting with the judge to make the judge aware of this concern before public
Commissioners Court discussion or action. No pending or future case would be discussed.

QUESTION: Should a judge meet with County Commissioners to discuss
previous decisions in cases in which the County was a party?

ANSWER: No. The Committee concludes that such a meeting would be
inconsistent with the following provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct:

The Canon 1 provision that an independent
judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society.

The Canon 2A provision that a judge should
promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. The
Committee believes that the proposed private meeting, between a judge and the principal
officers of one party to a series of lawsuits, would tend to impair public confidence in
the impartiality of the judiciary.

The Canon 2B provision that a judge should
not convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position
to influence the judge.

The Canon 3A(1) provision that a judge
should be unswayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism.

The Canon 3A(5) provision that a judge shall not directly or indirectly permit private
communications concerning the merits of a pending proceeding. The Committee believes that
under the circumstances stated a meeting to discuss previous decisions in eminent domain
cases would give the appearance of being a meeting concerning decisions in pending or
future eminent domain cases.

Although the Supreme Court has abrogated the Code of Judicial Conduct provision [Canon
3A(8)] that a judge shall abstain from public comment about a pending or impending
proceeding in any court, the members of this Committee agree that such comments are
unethical. By attending such a meeting about previous decisions a judge would give the
appearance of accepting an invitation to comment on impending decisions in similar cases.

The Canon 7(2) provision that a judge shall
not make pledges or promises regarding judicial duties other that the faithful and
impartial performance to the duties of office. The Committee believes that by attending
such a meeting a judge would give the appearance of accepting an invitation to give
assurance concerning decisions in pending and future eminent domain cases.